Is it inherently wrong for the Washington Post to publish the piece and give PR to Hamas? I'm not sure, but probably not. I guess what offends me is that the column was published despite the transparent distortions of the piece, which reads like it came straight from a Madison Avenue ad agency.

For example, Marzook refers to "America's long-standing tradition of supporting the oppressed's rights to self-determination." Later, Marzook writes about "the great thoughts, principles and ideals you hold dear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the democracy you have built." This is the same Marzook and the same Hamas who, along with other Islamic fundamentalists, rail in Arabic against America, and who not only oppose the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, but express this opposition by suicide bombings, kidnappings and shootings.

Marzook writes that Palestinian "society has always celebrated pluralism," recognizes "Judeo-Christian traditions" and seeks to preserve "the Holy Land for all three Abrahamic faiths."

How can one even respond to such absurd statements? Hamas wants an Islamic state in which Jews will, at best, be deported. How many Jews would live in Palestinian society that "has as always celebrated pluralism?" The answer is zero.

Then, Marzook asks Israelis "to reflect on the peace that our peoples once enjoyed and the protection that Muslims gave the Jewish community worldwide" and says that "there must come a day when we will live together, side by side once again."

Marzook is presumably referring to those good days when Jews and Christians living in countries under Muslim rule were dhimmis, essentially second-class members of society who were forced to pay lots of extra taxes, were prohibited from worshipping their religion, among other fun stuff in "pluralist" Muslim society.